Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 107

Thread: Trump on Tariffs: Punish China By Taxing Americans - Ron Paul Liberty Report

  1. #1

    Trump on Tariffs: Punish China By Taxing Americans - Ron Paul Liberty Report

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/9LKzqWFeqnZ0/
    (VIDEO - BitChute is an alternative to YouTube)

    Trump on Tariffs: Punish China By Taxing Americans
    Video 19:33 min. Friday March 2, 2018 Ron Paul and Chris Rossini
    Every special interest has a pitch on how to get government benefits at the expense of everyone else. This week we get the steel industry pitch. Beat China by paying a tax to the U.S. government. With enough propaganda, Americans will go along with it. But Ron Paul will tell the truth instead.

    http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...xing-americans
    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/


    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    What does Ron Paul know about economics.

    Trump says protective tarrifs and trade wars are awesome and he owns a competitor to Holiday Inn Express.
    Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
    ‫‬‫‬

  4. #3


    Pretty much sums it up.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  5. #4
    The US steel industry has been protected and subsidised since the first steel mill went into production in the late 1800s. This has led to us having the most inefficient, uncompetitive steel industry in the world. So naturally the solution is more protectionism at the expense of consumers and steel using industries. Same $#@!, different day.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  6. #5
    I suppose I am not disappointed to see all the usual suspects virtue signaling on the tariffs issue as they do on every other issue of importance to globalist tyrants.

    The tariffs, of course, don't even begin to level the playing field, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the nature of the trade deals given to us by the likes of two Bushes, two Clintons, and an Obama would know.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    I suppose I am not disappointed to see all the usual suspects virtue signaling on the tariffs issue as they do on every other issue of importance to globalist tyrants.

    The tariffs, of course, don't even begin to level the playing field, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the nature of the trade deals given to us by the likes of two Bushes, two Clintons, and an Obama would know.

    Yes, yes. That damned Ron Paul is such a virtue signaling shill for globalist tyrants.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  8. #7
    Ron Paul is right , but , I do not see this to be significant , so , my prediction is no real effect .

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    I suppose I am not disappointed to see all the usual suspects virtue signaling on the tariffs issue as they do on every other issue of importance to globalist tyrants.

    The tariffs, of course, don't even begin to level the playing field, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the nature of the trade deals given to us by the likes of two Bushes, two Clintons, and an Obama would know.
    It's really good to know you aren't disappointed, I was kinda worried.
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Forgive me, for a moment I thought you grew a brain.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I posted this elsewhere:

    George W. Trump, Protectionist
    Thomas DiLorenzo

    One of the first things Dub-Yuh did as president was to impose tariffs on steel imports. The U.S. steel industry has claimed to deserve “infant industry” protection with tariffs and quotas for at least the past 160 years. Some people never grow up. Trump has followed suit with tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which will increase the price of everything made of steel and aluminum (i.e., American-made cars), rendering vast portions of the U.S. economy less competitive in international competition. Thousands of American workers will lose their jobs as a result. It will also loot the pocketbooks of American purchasers of American-made goods that contain steel and aluminum, i.e., Trump’s working-class political base, with higher prices. Other countries will retaliate with high tariffs on American-made goods, causing even more unemployment among Trump voters in the export-related industries. Trump just shot himself in the foot with a bazooka.

    The beneficiaries will be the Crooked Hillarys of American industry — the sleazy, corrupt, plunder-seeking steel and aluminum corporations and their unions. There is nothing more anti-populist than that, which has now become the defining economic policy of this supposedly “populist” president. What a joke. If Trump is an “economic populist” then I’m the pope.

    I explained this thirty years ago in an article that was eventually reprinted in Readers Digest, which at the time had some 30 million readers around the world in several languages.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...protectionist/
    There is no spoon.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    I suppose I am not disappointed to see all the usual suspects virtue signaling on the tariffs issue as they do on every other issue of importance to globalist tyrants.

    The tariffs, of course, don't even begin to level the playing field, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the nature of the trade deals given to us by the likes of two Bushes, two Clintons, and an Obama would know.
    And what about all y'alls virtue signaling about globalism? This is not a big-government website dude; of course we're going to complain.
    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    President Trump is right about taxing at our water’s edge.

    President Trump is spot on to promote tax policy, especially at our water’s edge, which advances America’s general welfare and common defense, just as our founding fathers did, and that would include a modern-day tax policy to insure America is not dependent upon foreign nations for steel or aluminum, both of which are vital in the production of America’s military needs.



    The historical fact is, our founding fathers used taxes at our water’s edge to promote America’s best interests, and the use of these taxes were very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who have sold their souls to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America, and likewise have sold their souls to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce which now represents these international corporate giants and our global governance crowd.


    (more..)
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...water%92s-edge


    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Of All the Forms of State Theft:

    Sales Taxes
    Income Taxes
    Excise Taxes
    Inflation Taxes (Printing Money)
    Property Taxes
    Stamp Taxes
    Permission Taxes (Licensing)

    Import Taxes (Tariffs)
    are the least intrusive for the American People and keep Leviathan at the edges (borders) of the/any country.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    The Case for Free Trade
    By Ron Paul

    Mises.org

    December 1, 2016

    In 1981 the Federal Register published a declaration from President Reagan: “I determine that it is in the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to extend a credit in the amount of $120.7 million to the Socialist Republic of Romania (for) the purchase of two nuclear steam turbine generators.”

    This loan carried an interest rate of 7¾% for ten years, but the first payment wasn’t due until July 1989.

    Not too long before this announcement, the administration had made public its “voluntary” restraints on the number of cars Japan can export to the United States.

    These two items—subsidization of trade and its restriction—are all too typical of our present trade policy.

    Although we think of ourselves as a free-trading nation, it takes more than 700 pages just to list all the tariffs on imported goods, and another 400 to inventory all the non-tariff restraints, such as quotas and “orderly marketing agreements.”

    A tariff is a tax levied on a foreign good, to help a special interest at the expense of American consumers.

    A trade restraint or marketing agreement—on the number of inexpensive Taiwanese sneakers that Americans can buy, for example—achieves the same goal, at the same cost, in a less forthright manner.

    And all the trends are towards more subsidies for U.S. exporters, and more prohibitions and taxes on imports.

    Trade is to be subsidized or restrained, not left to the voluntary actions of consumers and producers.

    In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of “protecting” U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made worldwide and longer-lasting.

    Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.

    Not only does protectionism make everyone poorer—except certain special interests—but it also increases international tensions, and can lead to war.

    “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it,” wrote Adam Smith in 1776, “better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country will not therefore be diminished… but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed to the greater advantage.”

    An important economic principle is called the division of labor. It states that economic efficiency, and therefore growth, is enhanced by everyone doing what he does best.

    If I had to grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, and teach my own children, our family’s living standard would plummet to a subsistence, or below-subsistence, level.

    But if I practice medicine, and allow others with more talent as farmers, builders or tailors to do what they do best, we are all better oft: Precious capital and labor are directed to the areas of most productivity, and through voluntary trading, we all benefit.

    This principle works just as effectively on a national and world-wide scale, as Adam Smith pointed out.

    It may be that Japan can make cars more efficiently than Detroit, at least certain kinds of cars, and that the capital and labor in parts of the u.S. auto industry could be better employed in other areas. With quotas, however, we will never find out We will only increase the price of those Japanese cars that do get through, and of U.S. cars as well, since competitive pressures will be taken off General Motors and Ford.

    Free trade at all levels makes for more prosperity, as the Founding Fathers knew. That’s why they gave Congress power to remove barriers to interstate commerce.

    During the period of the Confederation—after our independence but before the adoption of the Constitution—some of the states erected tariff barriers against imports from their neighbors. The resulting economic stagnation and antagonism threatened the unity of our country, and led to the adoption of the interstate commerce clause by the Constitutional convention. The removal of all trade barriers—and not meddling in the economy—was the purpose of the clause.

    As a result, we, as Americans, are free to trade with all other Americans, so that resources are put to their most efficient use in our giant domestic market This happy consequence is no small contributor to our wealth.

    Without this Constitutional prohibition, state legislatures would listen to lobbyists for special interests and enact protection against “unfair” out-of-state competition.

    Knowing how similar situations come about, we could bet that someone in Minnesota, with idle greenhouses, would lobby the state legislature, pointing out that farmers in Florida, California, and Texas have too easy a time growing oranges. To protect Minnesota farmers, and create jobs, they would call for a heavy tax on out-of-state citrus, so greenhouse growing of oranges would become economic in Minneapolis.

    As a result, oranges would drastically increase in price, and the quality would be lower. Minnesotans who like orange juice would be able to afford less, and what they could get would not be as good. But some would reap windfall profits, at the expense of the consumer. And pressure in orange-growing states would grow to retaliate against Minnesota products, to the detriment of everyone in the country. And we could bet that interstate antagonisms would increase as well. International trade barriers work no differently.

    But because our Constitution forbids such domestic barriers, a company in Laredo, Texas, can trade freely, easily, and profitably with a firm in Oregon, thousands of miles away. (It’s important to remember that both parties to a non-coerced, non-fraudulent trade benefit from the exchange, or hope to benefit, or the exchange would not take place.)

    But let that Laredo firm seek to trade with a Mexican company only a mile away, and tremendous impediments spring up, thanks to government regulations on both sides. “The motive of all these regulations,” wrote Adam Smith, “is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvements, but by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such disagreeable rivals.”

    No one worries about the balance of trade between Oregon and Texas. That between Mexico and Texas should be of no consequence either. It is a problem only to government planners.


    Dr. Murray Rothbard, who lives in New York City, has said that he’s delighted the federal government doesn’t keep interborough trade statistics. “We’d have the Bronx and Brooklyn worried about the balance of trade!”

    “Nations,” notes Dr. Rothbard, “may be important politically and culturally, but economically they appear only as a consequence of government intervention.”

    But doesn’t protection save U.S. jobs? Yes, it can save the jobs of some, but it costs jobs overall and harms consumers.

    Limiting Japanese car imports, for example, does protect the. jobs of high-seniority members of the United Auto Workers, who earn twice the average U.S. industrial wage. But it takes away any incentive to correct government-caused productivity problems.

    But diverting resources into uneconomic uses takes them away from other, more productive, areas and costs jobs. Some jobs are lost; others are never created. The uneconomic effects of protectionism benefit a few- usually well-to-do—at the expense of the great majority, including the poor.

    Protectionism cannot be justified on economic or moral grounds. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, tariffs are “legalized plunder.” The law is used to steal.

    By what right does the U.S. government tell an American citizen he cannot buy a foreign product? Such action is reprehensible on every ground imaginable and is totally incompatible with individual freedom. Also inexcusable on any ground is the vast network of U.S. trade subsidies.

    The taxpayers subsidize companies through the Export-Import Bank, the Department of Commerce, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to name only three.

    Such programs contribute to inflation, high taxes, “crowding out” in the capital markets, higher prices, and misallocation of resources.

    Exports are only useful economically when they are profitable. Otherwise, they represent a net loss.

    But don’t we need our own subsidies because other countries have theirs? If the government of France wishes to help impoverish their own citizens to send us cheap products, why should we impoverish ours as well? We can, and should, oppose those policies for France as well as the United States, but we have no right to take away buying opportunities from our own consumers.

    Notes the Council for a Competitive Economy: we should consider what would happen if a foreign country decided to give us free cars, TVs, steel, and other products. Would this hurt the American people? To ask the question is to answer it.

    Every economic intervention in trade, domestic or foreign, should be abolished, for practical and moral reasons.

    Even if other countries maintain tariffs or subsidies, we would be helped, not hurt, by unilaterally ending ours.

    We would improve our productivity, shift resources to those areas where we ‘have an advantage, grow morepros-perous, and make a greater variety of less-expensive goods available to our people.

    And we would serve the cause of peace and set a good example for the world to emulate.

    “When people and goods cross borders,” Ludwig von Mises used to quote, “armies do not.” Free and extensive trade, unsubsidized, between the peoples of the Earth lowers tensions and makes us all better off It is, morally and economically, the only proper policy.
    Last edited by Ender; 03-06-2018 at 06:17 PM.
    There is no spoon.

  15. #13
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  16. #14
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  17. #15
    Cross post

    From WSJ via ZeroHedge:

    The immediate impact will be to make the U.S. an island of high-priced steel and aluminum. …

    Mr. Trump seems not to understand that steel-using industries in the U.S. employ some 6.5 million Americans, while steel makers employ about 140,000. …

    Instead of importing steel to make goods in America, many companies will simply import the finished product made from cheaper steel or aluminum abroad.

    Mr. Trump fancies himself the savior of the U.S. auto industry, but he might note that Ford Motor shares fell 3% Thursday and GM’s fell 4%. U.S. Steel gained 5.8%. Mr. Trump has handed a giant gift to foreign car makers, which will now have a cost advantage over Detroit. …

    The National Retail Federation called the tariffs a “tax on American families,” who will pay higher prices for canned goods and even beer in aluminum cans. Another name for this is the Trump voter tax.

    The economic damage will quickly compound because other countries can and will retaliate against U.S. exports. Not steel, but against farm goods, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, Cummins engines, John Deere tractors, and much more. Foreign countries are canny enough to know how to impose maximum political pain …

    Then there’s the diplomatic damage … Mr. Trump is declaring a unilateral exception to U.S. trade agreements that other countries won’t forget and will surely emulate. The national security threat from foreign steel is preposterous because China supplies only 2.2% of U.S. imports and Russia 8.7%. … Canada … supplies 16%, South Korea 10%, Brazil 13% and Mexico 9%. …

    Canada buys more American steel than any other country, accounting for 50% of U.S. steel exports. Mr. Trump is punishing our most important trading partner
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    The tariffs, of course, don't even begin to level the playing field, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the nature of the trade deals given to us by the likes of two Bushes, two Clintons, and an Obama would know.
    So the TM way to deal with distortions caused by government intervention into the marketplace is to endorse and promote more government intervention in the marketplace.

    "Trade barriers are chiefly injurious to the countries imposing them." - John Stuart Mill
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post

    I'd +rep you if I could.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  21. #18
    From over a year ago, but another good one by Dr. Paul on Tariffs. Its the first question in the video.

    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    I'd +rep you if I could.
    Same- I've run outta +reps for @AZJoe.
    There is no spoon.

  23. #20
    Free Trade is like pacifism, it is a great idea but it has limits, I practice pacifism with my friends and family and anyone who doesn't assault me but you need to carry a weapon in case you are assaulted, we have been assaulted on trade and it is time to draw our weapons (tariffs) and fight back.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    A long read but worth it- explains free trade and it's significance to liberty quite well.

    Trade and the Rise of Freedom
    By Thomas DiLorenzo

    Mises.org

    March 7, 2018
    [This speech was delivered at the Mises Institute’s conference on “The History of Liberty.”]

    It is not an exaggeration to say that trade is the keystone of modern civilization. For as Murray Rothbard wrote: “The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade — such as protectionism — cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity.”1

    Human beings cannot truly be free unless there is a high degree of economic freedom — the freedom to collaborate and coordinate plans with other people from literally all around the world. That is the point of Leonard Read’s famous article, “I Pencil,” which describes how to produce an item as mundane as an ordinary pencil requires the cooperation and collaboration of thousands of people from all around the world, all of whom possess very specific knowledge (of “time and place,” as Mises called it) that allows them to assist in the production and marketing of pencils. The same is true, of course, for virtually everything else that is produced.

    Without economic freedom — the freedom to earn a living for oneself and one’s family — people are destined to become mere wards of the state. Thus, every attempt by the state to interfere with trade is an attempt to deny us our freedom, to impoverish us, and to turn us into modern-day serfs.

    Mises believed that trade or exchange is “the fundamental social relation” which “weaves the bond which unites men into society.”2 Man “serves in order to be served” in any trade relationship in the free market.3 Mises also distinguished between two types of social cooperation: cooperation by virtue of private contract and coordination, and cooperation by virtue of command and subordination or “hegemony.”4 The former type of coordination is symmetrical and mutually advantageous, whereas the latter is asymmetrical — there is a commander and a commandee, and the commandees are mere pawns in the actions of the commanders. When people become the mere pawns of their rulers they cannot be said to be free. This, of course, is the kind of “cooperation” that exists at the hands of the state.

    Western civilization — like other advanced civilizations — is the result of “achievements of men who have cooperated according to the pattern of contractual coordination.”5 The contractual state is guided by such concepts as natural rights to life, liberty, and property and government under the rule of law. In contrast, the “hegemonic society” is a society that does not respect natural rights or the rule of law. All that matters are the rules, directives, and regulations issued by dictators, whether they are called “kings” or “congressmen.” These directives may change daily, and the wards of the state must obey. As Mises wrote: “The wards have one freedom only: to obey without asking questions.”6

    Trade involves the exchange of property titles. Restrictions on free trade are therefore an attack on private property itself and not “merely” a matter of “trade policy.” This is why such great classical liberals as Frederic Bastiat spent many years of their lives defending free trade. Bastiat, as much as anyone, understood that once one acquiesced in protectionism, then no one’s property will be safe from myriad other governmental acts of theft. To Bastiat, protectionism and communism were essentially the same philosophy.

    It has long been recognized by classical liberals that free trade was the most important means of diminishing the likelihood of war. And nothing is more destructive of human freedom than war. War always leads to a permanent enlargement of the state — and a reduction in human freedom — regardless of who wins. On the eve of the French Revolution many philosophers believed that democracy would put an end to war, for wars were thought to be fought merely to aggrandize and enrich the rulers of Europe. The substitution of representative government for royal despotism was supposed to end warfare once and for all, for the people are not concerned about territorial acquisition through conquest. The French quickly proved this theory wrong, however, for under the leadership of Napoleon they “adopted the most ruthless methods of boundless expansion and annexation . . . .”(7)

    Thus, it is not democracy that is a safeguard against war but, as the British (classical) Liberals were to recognize, it is free trade. To Richard Cobden and John Bright, the leaders of the British Manchester School, free trade — both domestically and internationally — was a necessary prerequisite for the preservation of peace. For in a world of trade and social cooperation, there are no incentives for war and conquest. It is government interference with free trade that is the source of international conflict. Indeed, naval blockades that restrict trade are the ultimate act of war, and have been for centuries. Throughout history, restrictions on trade have proven to be impoverishing and have instigated acts of war motivated by territorial acquisition and plunder as alternatives to peaceful exchange as the means of enhancing living standards.

    It is no mere coincidence that the 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization — a cabal of bureaucrats, politicians, and lobbyists which favors government-controlled trade — was marked by a week-long riot, protests, and violence. Whenever trade is politicized the result is inevitably conflict that quite often leads, eventually, to military aggression.

    Mises summarized the relationship between free trade and peace most eloquently when he noted:

    What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. …Such is the laissez-faire philosophy of Manchester.8

    As Frederic Bastiat often said, if goods can’t cross borders, armies will. This is a quintessentially American philosophy in that it was the position assumed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, among others. A foreign policy based on commerce,” wrote Paine in Common Sense, would secure for America “the peace and friendship” of the Continent and allow her to “shake hands with the world — and trade in any market.”9 Paine — the philosopher of the American Revolution — believed that free trade would “temper the human mind,” help people to “know and understand each other,” and have a “civilizing effect” on everyone involved in it.10 Trade was seen as “a pacific system, operating to unite mankind be rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other. . . . War can never be in the interest of a trading nation.”11

    George Washington obviously agreed. “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest,” he stated in his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address.12 Our commercial policy “should hold an equal and impartial and; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; deversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing . . .”13

    The Eternal Struggle Between Freedom and Mercantilism


    The period of world history from the middle of the fifteenth to the middle of the eighteenth centuries was an era of growth in world trade and invention and of institutions suited to trade. Technological innovations in shipping, such as the three-masted sail, brought the merchants of Europe to the far reaches of America and Asia. This vast expansion of trade greatly facilitated the worldwide division of labor, greater specialization, and the benefits of comparative advantage.14

    But whenever human freedom advances, as it did with the growth of trade, state power is threatened. So states did all they could then, as now, to restrict trade. It is the system of trade restrictions and other governmental interferences with the free market, known as mercantilism, that Adam Smith railed against in The Wealth of Nations. As Rothbard has written:

    Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state. Thus, mercantilism held that exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged.15

    Classical liberals waged an ideological war against mercantilism during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and scored some major victories for freedom. The French “physiocrats,” led by Dr. Francois Quesnay, a physician who got interested in economic topics (at a time when “physicians” bled their patients with leeches and “surgery” meant the amputation of limbs). The physiocrats were quite influential from the 1750s to the 1770s and were among the first laissez faire thinkers who contemptuously denigrated mercantilist propaganda and called for complete freedom of domestic and international trade. Their position was based on sound economics as well as Lockean notions of natural rights. Quesnay wrote that “Every man has a natural right to the free exercize of his faculties provided he does not employ them to the injury of himself or others.”16

    When he became Finance Minister of France in 1774, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, a precursor of the Austrian School, decreed freedom of import and export of grain as his first official act.

    At around the same time, Adam Smith was defending trade on moral as well as economic grounds by enunciating his doctrine of how free trade was part of the system of “natural justice.” One of the ways he did this was to defend smugglers and the act of smuggling as a means of evading mercantilist restrictions on trade. The smuggler, explained Smith, was engaged in “productive labor” that served his fellow man (i.e., consumers), whereas if he is caught by the government and prosecuted, his capital is “absorbed either in the revenue of the state or in that of the revenue-officer,” which is an “unproductive” use “to the diminution of the general capital of the society. . . “17

    The Manchester School

    Despite powerful arguments in favor of free trade offered by Quesnay, Smith, David Ricardo, and others, England (and other countries of Europe) suffered from protectionist trade policies for the first half of the nineteenth century. But this situation was turned around due to the heroic and brilliant efforts of what came to be known as the “Manchester School,” led by two British businessmen, John Bright and Richard Cobden. Thanks to Bright and Cobden Great Britain achieved complete free trade by 1850.

    The British public was plundered by the mercantilist “corn laws” which placed strict import quotas on the importation of food. The laws benefited political supporters of the government who were engaged in farming at the expense of much higher food prices, which was especially harmful to the poor. Bright and Cobden formed the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839 and turned it into a well-oiled political machine with mass support, distributing literally millions of leaflets, holding conferences and gatherings all around the country, delivering hundreds of speeches, and publishing their own newspaper, The League.18

    The Irish potato famine of 1845 created great pressures for repeal of the Corn Laws, which was finally achieved on June 25, 1846. The elimination of all other import duties followed, and a 70-year period of British free trade began. Richard Cobden was also influential in pushing through the Anglo-French treaty of 1860, which lowered French tariffs and helped put that country on the road to freer trade.

    The Great Bastiat

    From his home in Mugron, France, Frederic Bastiat single handedly created a free-trade movement in his own country that eventually spread throughout Europe. Bastiat was a gentleman farmer who had inherited the family estate. He was a voracious reader, and spent many years educating himself in classical liberalism and in just about any other field that he could attain information about. After some twenty years of intense intellectual preparation, articles and books began to pour out of Bastiat (in the 1840s). His book, Economic Sophisms, is to this day arguably the best defense of free trade ever published. His second book, Economic Harmonies, quickly followed, while Bastiat published magazine and newspapers all over France. His work was so popular and influential that it was immediately translated into English, Spanish, Italian, and German.

    Due to Bastiat’s enormous influence free-trade associations, modeled after one he had created in France and similar to the one created by his friend, Richard Cobden, in England, began to sprout in Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Prussia, and Germany.

    To Bastiat, collectivism in all its forms was immoral as well as economically destructive.

    Collectivism constituted “legal plunder,” and to argue against the (natural) right to private property would be similar to arguing that theft and slavery were “moral.” The protection of private property is the only legitimate function of government, Bastiat wrote, which is why trade restrictions — and all other mercantilist schemes — should be condemned. Free trade “is a question of right, of justice, of pubic order, of property. Because privilege, under whatever form it is manifested, implies the denial or the scorn of property rights.” And “the right to property, once weakened in one form, would soon be attacked in a thousand different forms.”19

    The Struggle Against Mercantilism in America


    There is no clearer example of how trade restrictions are the enemy of freedom than the American Revolution. In the seventeenth century all European states practiced the policy of mercantilism. England imposed a series of Trade and Navigation Acts on its colonies in America and elsewhere, which embodied three principles: 1) All trade between England and her colonies must be conducted by English (or English-built) vessels owned and manned by English subjects; 2) All European imports into the colonies must “first be laid on the shores of England” before being sent to the colonies so that extra tariffs could be placed on them; and 3) Certain products from the colonies must be exported to England and England only.

    In addition, the colonists were prohibited from trading with Asia because of the East India Company’s state-chartered monopoly. There were import duties placed on all colonial imports into England.

    After the Seven Years War (known in America as the French-Indian War), England’s massive land holdings (Canada, India, North America to the Mississippi, most of the West Indies) became very expensive to administer and police. Consequently, the Trade and Navigation Acts were made even more oppressive, which imposed severe hardships on the American colonists and helped lead to revolution.20

    After the American Revolution trade restrictions nearly caused the New England states — which suffered disproportionately from the restrictions — to secede from the Union. In 1807 Thomas Jefferson was president and England was once again at war with France. England declared that it would “secure her seamen wherever found,” which included U.S. ships. After a British warship captured the USS Chesapeake off Hampton Roads, Virginia, Jefferson imposed a trade embargo that made all international commerce illegal. After Jefferson left office his successor, James Madison, imposed an “Enforcement Act” which allowed war-on-drugs style seizure of goods suspected to be destined for export.

    This radicalized the New England secessionists, who had been plotting to secede ever since Jefferson was elected, issued a public declaration reminding the nation that “the U.S. Constitution was a Treaty of Alliance and Confederation” and that the central government was no more than an association of the states. Consequently, “whenever its [i.e., the Constitution’s] provisions were violated, or its original principles departed from by a majority of the states or their people, it is no longer and effective instrument, but that any state is at liberty by the spirit of that contract to withdraw itself from the union.”21

    The Massachusetts legislature formally condemned the embargo, demanded its repeal by Congress, and declared that it was “not legally binding.” In other words, the Massachusetts legislature “nullified” the law. Madison was forced to end the embargo in March of 1809.

    There has always been a collection of men in America who wanted to bring the British mercantilist system here precisely because it was so destructive of freedom. That is, they figured to be the “commanders” of the system and its chief beneficiaries. As John Taylor of Caroline observed, these men “included Hamilton and the Federalists and later, the politicians of the Era of Good Feelings in the 1820s who eventually became Whigs.”22 These men “sought to bring the British system to America, along with its national debt, political corruption, and Court party . . .”23

    Taylor, a noted Anti-Federalist, was a lifelong critic of mercantilism and laid out his criticisms in his 1822 book,Tyranny Unmasked. Like Bastiat, Taylor saw protectionism as an assault on private property that was diametrically opposed to the freedom the American revolutionaries had fought and died for. The tyranny that Taylor sought to “unmask” was the collection of fables and lies that had been devised by mercantilists to promote their system of plunder. If one looks at England’s mercantilist policies, Taylor wrote, “No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered.”24 He wrote of the “indissoluble conexions” between both “the freedom of industry and national prosperity” and also “between national distress and protecting duties, bounties, exclusive privileges, and heavy taxation.”25 The former produces national happiness, whereas the latter produces national misery, according to Taylor. In pointing out the folly of economic autarky Taylor asked:

    Will Alabama want nothing but cotton, should that State select this species of labour for its staple? Can she eat, drink, and ride her cotton? Can she manufacture it into tools, cheese, fish, rum, wine, sugar, and tea? …Is not Georgia a market for manufacturers, and Rhode-Island a market for cotton, in consequence of the division of labor?26

    Many of Taylor’s arguments were adopted and expanded upon by the great South Carolinian statesman John C. Calhoun during the struggle over the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” which a South Carolina political convention voted to nullify. The confrontation between South Carolina, which was very heavily import dependent, as was most of the South, and the federal government over the Tariff of Abominations almost led to the state’s secession some thirty years prior to the War for Southern Independence. The federal government backed down and reduced the tariff rate in 1833.

    The Northern manufacturers who wanted to impose British-style mercantilism on the U.S. did not give up, however; they formed the American Whig party, which advocated three mercantilist schemes: protectionism, corporate welfare for themselves, and a central bank to pay for it all. From 1832 until 1861 the Whigs, led by Henry Clay and, later, by Abraham Lincoln, fought mightily in the political arena to bring seventeenth-century mercantilism to America.27

    The Whig party died in 1852, but the Whigs simply began calling themselves Republicans. The tariff was the centerpiece of the Republican party platform of 1860, as it had been when the same collection of Northern economic interests called itself “Whigs” for the previous thirty years.


    By 1857 the level of tariffs had been reduced to the lowest level since 1815, according to Frank Taussig in his classic Tariff History of the United States.28 But when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Southern Democrats left the Congress the Republicans did what, as former Whigs, they had been itching to do for decades: go on a protectionist frenzy. In his First Inaugural Address Lincoln stated that he had no intention to disturb slavery in the Southern states and, even if he did, there would be no constitutional basis for doing so. But when it came to the tariff, he promised a military invasion if tariff revenues were not collected. Unlike Andrew Jackson, he would not back down to the South Carolinian tariff nullifiers.

    By 1862 the average tariff rate had crept up to 47.06 percent, the highest level ever, even higher than the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. These high rates lasted for decades after the war.

    In the nineteenth century newspapers were formally associated with one political party or another, and many of the Republican party newspapers in 1860 were openly calling for a military invasion of Southern ports to keep the South from adopting free trade, which was written into the Confederate Constitution of 1861. On March 12, 1861, for example, the New York Post advocated that the U.S. Navy “abolish all ports of entry” in the South.29 On April 2, 1861 the Newark (NJ) Daily Advertiser warned ominously that Southerners had “apparently taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade” and that free trade “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North” as “commerce will be largely diverted to Southern cities.” The “chief instigator” of “the present troubles,” South Carolina, has all along been “preparing the way for the adoption of free trade” and must be stopped by “the closing of the ports” by military force.30

    As mentioned above, by 1860 England itself had moved to complete free trade; France sharply reduced her tariff rates in that very year; and Bastiat’s free-trade movement was spreading throughout Europe. Only the Northern United States was clinging steadfastly to seventeenth-century mercantilism.

    After the war the Northern manufacturing interests who financed and controlled the Republican party (i.e., the old Whigs) were firmly in control and they “ushered in a long period of high tariffs. With the tariff of 1897, protection reached an average level of 57 percent.”31 This political plunder continued for about fifty years after the war, at which time international competition forced tariff rates down moderately. By 1913 the average tariff rate in the U.S. had declined to 29 percent.

    But the same clique of Northern manufacturers was begging for “protection” and persisted until they got it when Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1929, which increased the average tariff rate on over 800 items back up to 59.1 percent.32 The Smoot-Hawley tariff spawned an international trade war that resulted in about a 50 percent reduction in total exports from the United States between 1929 and 1932.33 Poverty and misery was the inevitable result. Even worse, the government responded to these problems of its own creation with a massive increase in government intervention, which only produced even more poverty and misery and deprived Americans of more and more of their freedoms.

    CONCLUSIONS


    Since the seventeenth century all the great classical liberals have defended free trade and opposed trade restrictions. Trade restrictions are an attack on the institution of private property, interfere with the international division of labor that is the source of our prosperity, and are nothing less than an act of theft. As Murray Rothbard remarked:

    “The impetus for protectionism comes not from preposterous theories, but from the quest for coerced special privilege and restraint of trade at the expense of efficient competitors and consumers. In the host of special interests using the political process to repress and loot the rest of us, the protectionists are among the most venerable. It is high time that we get them, once and for all, off our backs, and treat them with the righteous indignation they so richly deserve.”34
    There is no spoon.

  25. #22
    Tariffs, cheap money, massive government, massive deficits, keep it coming! My investments are loving it!

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Free Trade is like pacifism, it is a great idea but it has limits, I practice pacifism with my friends and family and anyone who doesn't assault me but you need to carry a weapon in case you are assaulted, we have been assaulted on trade and it is time to draw our weapons (tariffs) and fight back.
    This logic almost works, but it's like being robbed and then saying, "oh yeah? Take this!" and shooting yourself. Guns for self defense are legitimate and useful, but be careful not to do something that will not have the effect you intended.

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    This logic almost works, but it's like being robbed and then saying, "oh yeah? Take this!" and shooting yourself. Guns for self defense are legitimate and useful, but be careful not to do something that will not have the effect you intended.

    LOL
    I will agree that just like guns tariffs can be misused, but they can be required to defend yourself.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Free Trade is like pacifism, it is a great idea but it has limits, I practice pacifism with my friends and family and anyone who doesn't assault me but you need to carry a weapon in case you are assaulted, we have been assaulted on trade and it is time to draw our weapons (tariffs) and fight back.
    It's time to stop calling the current arrangements "free trade" because they couldn't be further from it.

    "Free trade" is a lie. There is no free trade. And there cannot be free trade in the absence of parters who free trade in return - of which there are none at all, anywhere, in the real world.

    This virtue-signaling anti-tariff rhetoric is insulting to anyone with intelligence. What we have now, trade-wise, is not liberty, is not even close to liberty, and cannot ever get us closer to liberty. Our trade agreements amount to little more than exclusive privileges for our financial oligarchy, with the costs socialized and gains privatized.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    It's time to stop calling the current arrangements "free trade" because they couldn't be further from it.

    "Free trade" is a lie. There is no free trade. And there cannot be free trade in the absence of parters who free trade in return - of which there are none at all, anywhere, in the real world.

    This virtue-signaling anti-tariff rhetoric is insulting to anyone with intelligence. What we have now, trade-wise, is not liberty, is not even close to liberty, and cannot ever get us closer to liberty. Our trade agreements amount to little more than exclusive privileges for our financial oligarchy, with the costs socialized and gains privatized.
    Exactly.
    My comment was referring to the theoretical idea of Free Trade, I have stated elsewhere and will continue to state that what we have now is globalist managed trade, renouncing trade agreements and defending ourselves is the only path that might get us closer to the ideal of Free Trade, I'm not sure if we will ever get there because that depends on the other countries behavior which we don't control.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    It's time to stop calling the current arrangements "free trade" because they couldn't be further from it.

    "Free trade" is a lie. There is no free trade. And there cannot be free trade in the absence of parters who free trade in return - of which there are none at all, anywhere, in the real world.

    This virtue-signaling anti-tariff rhetoric is insulting to anyone with intelligence. What we have now, trade-wise, is not liberty, is not even close to liberty, and cannot ever get us closer to liberty. Our trade agreements amount to little more than exclusive privileges for our financial oligarchy, with the costs socialized and gains privatized.
    China charges it's citizens a fee for buying U.S. goods. That simply isn't fair. We need to level the playing field by charging Americans this fee as well!

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    China charges it's citizens a fee for buying U.S. goods. That simply isn't fair. We need to level the playing field by charging Americans this fee as well!


    Now just quit sounding like that virtue signaling shill for globalist tyrants Ron Paul! /s
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Exactly.
    My comment was referring to the theoretical idea of Free Trade, I have stated elsewhere and will continue to state that what we have now is globalist managed trade, renouncing trade agreements and defending ourselves is the only path that might get us closer to the ideal of Free Trade, I'm not sure if we will ever get there because that depends on the other countries behavior which we don't control.
    You're assuming we're better off with tariffs if everyone else has tariffs on us.

    Suppose there's only 2 countries in the world. Tariffia and Freetradia. Tariffia puts a 1000% tariff on all goods from Freetradia, essentially making it illegal for Freetradia to sell goods to Tariffia, but at least Freetradia still can buy goods from Tariffia. Would Freetradia be better off if they "retaliated" and also put a 1000% tariff on goods from Tariffia? Then Freetradia can neither sell nor buy from Tariffia. At least before Freetradia could still buy stuff.

    The real problem is that we are not competitive because we are not the most free country anymore. Our government is too big. We need to reduce the size of government to become competitive. There'll be plenty of buyers if we can sell good stuff at a cheap price.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You're assuming we're better off with tariffs if everyone else has tariffs on us.

    Suppose there's only 2 countries in the world. Tariffia and Freetradia. Tariffia puts a 1000% tariff on all goods from Freetradia, essentially making it illegal for Freetradia to sell goods to Tariffia, but at least Freetradia still can buy goods from Tariffia. Would Freetradia be better off if they "retaliated" and also put a 1000% tariff on goods from Tariffia? Then Freetradia can neither sell nor buy from Tariffia. At least before Freetradia could still buy stuff.

    The real problem is that we are not competitive because we are not the most free country anymore. Our government is too big. We need to reduce the size of government to become competitive. There'll be plenty of buyers if we can sell good stuff at a cheap price.
    OK so in the real world this is what would happen. All the industries would move to Tariffia to avoid the tariffs while being able to sell to both countries. Freetradia would end up economically barren as Tariffia acquired all its economic assets.

    I suppose prices would be marginally lower for citizens of Freetradia, on the road to ruin. But the citizens of Freetradia would become much, much, poorer and no longer be able to buy the things they used to be able to buy, even at lower prices.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 82
    Last Post: 04-17-2018, 07:28 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-16-2018, 12:41 PM
  3. Trump Notches Another Win On Trade As China Slashes Tariffs
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-24-2017, 09:14 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2017, 03:06 PM
  5. China Hikes Up Tariffs on American-Made Cars
    By showpan in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 09:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •